New Delhi, Sep 23 (IANS) Former Union Minister and Rajya Sabha member Kapil Sibal, reacting to the controversy over ‘dissent’ in the Election Commission of India (ECI), stated that “the majority was not with Gyanesh Kumar” and claimed that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar was taking decisions “arbitrarily according to his own whims”.

The controversy emanated from a leading daily publishing an investigative report, claiming that on 14 occasions over a period of 10 months, two Election Commissioners had objected “on record” to steps taken by the Commission.

According to the report, the objections related to a range of decisions and processes, including allegations that the commissioners were kept in the dark about certain matters as well as issues concerning the addition of new voters and deletion of names from electoral rolls.

Speaking to reporters, Sibal said, “Earlier, there used to be only one member in the Election Commission; then an amendment was made, and a three-member Election Commission was created. And it was also decided that decisions would be taken by majority. So today, it has been established that the majority was not with Gyanesh Kumar. Gyanesh Kumar was making decisions arbitrarily according to his own whims — how to run the election, what the ERO should do, which form to file; Gyanesh Kumar was deciding all this.”

Referring to Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, the Rajya Sabha member said, “Joshi Sahab and Sandhu Sahab, who are Election Commissioners, protested several times against what Gyanesh Kumar is doing. And almost, I think, 14 times in 10 months, they protested… All decisions should be taken by majority. And if two Election Commissioners have opposed this, then that was ignored. And those matters didn’t even come before the Election Commission at all. This is the second point.”

Elaborating on the third point, Sibal pointed out that the Election Commissioners have also said that under the Representation of the People Act, one can conduct this Special Intensive Revision only in exceptional cases.

“Gyanesh Kumar ignored this as well, because the precedent isn’t that this happened before; only once under the Representation of the People Act, a special revision took place, and that too in a single small area — a single constituency. But now it is happening across the entire country,” Sibal said.

“And it is happening across the entire country so that the elections can be controlled in their own hands — to keep in their hands who should be given the right to vote, whose name should be deleted, and whose name should be added,” he added.

Sibal also raised questions over the use of Form 6 under the Representation of the People Act, which is required to be filled out by a new voter.

“The fourth point, which is an even more serious matter, is regarding Form 6 under the Representation of the People Act, which a new voter has to fill out. And in that, the new voter has to declare that ‘I have never voted before’. Right? Now, for those whose parents’ or grandparents’ names are not listed, or if my name gets cut off, I would have to fill out Form 6. And then in that, I would have to state that ‘I have never voted before’,” he added.

Sibal also alleged that multiple portals and applications were brought under a centralised system, raising concerns over the deletion of names from electoral rolls.

“Forty portals and apps were centralised into one. Meaning all authority was with the Commission. Then Seema Khanna, Director General (IT) of the Commission, everything came under her. And the second thing is that in 30 states, 13 crore names were removed. And if this entire process goes further, 30 crore names will be removed. We have already told these things to the Supreme Court. We are telling the Supreme Court — we tell them every day. Whenever this matter comes up, the Supreme Court does not even listen to us,” he said.

The ECI, however, rejected the daily’s report that two Election Commissioners “objected on record” to several decisions taken by the poll panel, allegedly without their knowledge.

–IANS

sd/mr